The Big Sammon Thread

[ronnieronalde]

...what?

I never criticised your grammar, I merely pointed out that what you offered was a hypothesis, not a theory, as I felt that calling you musing to yourself a theory seemed quite odd. I freely admit I was being a ***** by saying that, but your responses were both factually incorrect and lacking any more substance than falsely calling what I said a strawman.

What is odd as well is that while you were crying foul of what you perceived to be a strawman, a common fallacy, you yourself attempted to build your entire argument around the fallacy of appeal to authority. What's even funnier though is that this does has already been well and truly dealt with as we're talking about a particular context here.

Put bluntly, you should have either ignored me being a *****, or told me I was being a *****. There is no possible way of defending what you said from there as it is factually wrong and what went on from there was based around a fallacy. I'm not sure why you felt the need to continue it without offering anything new in a few posts is beyond me, but hey, I'm always put for a long pointless discussion.

Let's clear some things up though, what exactly have you have said so far:The key part for the discussion is the "if my theory is right" part. You've offered no explanation of what backing this "theory" has, and as such it can't really be considered a theory. Now, there real question here is the context of what is meant by a "theory". Now, like many words theory is used in all sorts of contexts these days, rightly or wrongly. The previous example I used was "literally", which Oxford England Dictionary lists as both meaning "Literally" and "not actually Literally". This is not the discussion here, I'm not interested in whether or not it is a common casual usage, and I made it clear from early in the discussion that I knew that there are common casual usages that are as you've used it. That was never the point, the point was whether it was right to use this in this context while using the word properly, not just casually.

The real question is what you mean by theory. Depending on discipline theory can mean a number of things, so what is the context here? Are you using it as a way of saying that based on past events and experience you feel that it may be the case that it works like that? If that's the case, it's a hypothesis, it doesn't really fit the strict definitions of a scientific hypothesis, but it's a hypothesis none the less. The key here really is whether you are saying that this idea that you have is solid and based on a body of evidence and it is well established that it is consistent with what's seen, or if it's an idea that you're proposing to explain it. But let's move on to what we've actually discussed:To repeat this, no, that is not a theorem. A theorem is a statement that is true so long as the statements that it is based on hold true. This is common in mathematics, but nothing like what I said. You completely missed the mark here and that first statement in this post is entirely false.

The second statement uses the 'appeal to authority' fallacy despite a lack of relevance. The common casual use of words is not what we are discussing, see above.

The third part is irrelevant as well, as you never presented a body of evidence, I don't need to assume anything, if you haven't offered evidence and presented the idea as just a thought you've had without a body of evidence, then that's how it should and will be treated. If you feel that you have a large body of evidence to back it, and a way of showing that it is consistent with what we've seen, go ahead, I'd be interested to see it.

As for the fourth statement, judging by responses since this post, I'm not sure this is the case.In this post you basically repeat the appeal to authority fallacy and ignore the discussion I presented about the difference between casual usage and what words are meant to mean. Again, think of literally, the OED entry says it all.Here you take a break from using appeal to authority to call an example a strawman, there is a very big difference, but this has already been discussed in detail.You seem to suggest that I did in fact use a strawman argument. I'd like you to explain where I used this supposed strawman, as it doesn't appear to be there.

Then you go for personal attacks. Fantastic, although I've already answered this post in more detail.

Long story short, your argument can be summarised as two key points:

1. You feel that if your definition is good enough for the OED, then it's good enough for this context

2. You feel that any reasoning against (1) is a strawman for reasons that you've not explained

Albert.

 

you're being a *****.

 

But I like you and your posts so please don't take offence ;-)

[cheron85]

Figuratively or figuratively?

 

You choose... I wasn't planning to come down there and do it in person, but I can if you like...

 

[Albert]

If Varney can't hit a barn door, I dread to think if Sammon can even hit the farm.

40 goals in 214 performances, including the Irish & Scottish Micky Mouse leagues. Wow.

Luke Varney has managed how many relegations in his career? Crewe, Charlton, Sheffield Wednesday, Blackpool and Portsmouth. What a player. His career stats are 60 goals in 267 appearances as well, with only one season above 10 goals, that coming in League One.

Having seen Varney as well, I'd take Sammon any day of the week.

[CornwallRam]

If you have a problem with definitions I don't think you should use "unilaterally" like that...

 

Whilst the defintion would (broadly) allow for it you would need to be directing that accusation at more than just Albert...

 

But if Albert used "literally" in place of "figuratively" I will reach my influence (I'm Batman) down under and slap him...

I don't get your point - but I'm actually interested to know what you mean.

 

I have taken to unilateraly to mean 'Performed by or affecting only one person, group'. Albert was the only one who performed it - unles he really is legion, so to my simple grasp of language it makes sense.

 

I would never (unless someone decides to be a smart arse) challenge anyone's grammar, syntax or general use of language on an internet forum. It's bad manners and being dyslexic, I'm far from perfect myself, being dyslexic and all.

[CornwallRam]

...what?

 I freely admit I was being a *****.

 Thankyou, apology accepted

[Gritstone Ram]

Does everyone understand all that *****. God i wish i'd listened more when i went to school

[DCFCfranco]

So is sammon awful of not?

[Gritstone Ram]

So is sammon awful of not?

Not sure based on what has been said. Not sure if I'm bothered anymore is that what all this is about?

[VulcanRam]

Except that I didn't say "Ah,as you're a journalist etc". Seems to be your own assumptions at issue here.

Nice try matey!

[ladyram]

Just wanted to say

WTF?

Thankyou for listening.

[ramblur]

Nice try matey!

 

Is that 'thought to be' or 'believed to be',or just a plain,unadulterated assumption?

 

Try this for a fine feast of the above:-

 

http://news.bbc.co.uk/sport2/hi/football/teams/d/derby_county/9363627.stm

 

Bit of a contrast to Clough's recent revelation that he thought BD had been excellent value for the £150k we paid.

[VulcanRam]

Is that 'thought to be' or 'believed to be',or just a plain,unadulterated assumption?

 

Try this for a fine feast of the above:-

 

http://news.bbc.co.uk/sport2/hi/football/teams/d/derby_county/9363627.stm

 

Bit of a contrast to Clough's recent revelation that he thought BD had been excellent value for the £150k we paid.

No idea my friend, I wasn't involved in this story so cannot comment, and i have no idea whether Clough said we paid that or not (and to be honest this is dragging on far too long for me to bother to check, or even care really)

All I can do is reiterate what I said before about the way it works between businesses and the press. It's what I've been involved with for over two decades and nothing you can say will change my mind because I have huge experience and countless examples. If you don't want to believe any of it, no problem.

[cheron85]

I don't get your point - but I'm actually interested to know what you mean.

 

The strict definition does allow for it to be individual to individual however the meaning of the word comes from the idea of mutliple agencies (whether people or organisations) coming together to one goal...

 

Basically what it boils down to is that the "uni" part of the word refers to the single goal and the "lateral" part refers to being side by side in pursuit/acheivement of that goal... and you can't be side by side with yourself... so unilaterally criticising someone would have to be done by more than one person...

[CornwallRam]

The strict definition does allow for it to be individual to individual however the meaning of the word comes from the idea of mutliple agencies (whether people or organisations) coming together to one goal...

 

Basically what it boils down to is that the "uni" part of the word refers to the single goal and the "lateral" part refers to being side by side in pursuit/acheivement of that goal... and you can't be side by side with yourself... so unilaterally criticising someone would have to be done by more than one person...

I think we'll just have to agree to differ on that one

[Albert]

What on Earth have a started?!

DCFCFans.co.uk, come discuss the Rams, football in general and of course, the subtleties of the English language!

Unilateralism is a one sided doctrine, and generally implies to that it disregards others.

The use by CornwallRam of 'Unilaterally' was very awkward, and sounded like a child picking up a thesaurus for an English assignment, but you can just about argue that it kind of made sense. That said, it was a very usual use of the word and I do wonder how that phrasing popped into your head.

Let's take an example of a normal sentence (this from wikipedia's article on Steve Bloomer):

Steve Bloomer was an English footballer and manager who played for Derby County, Middlesbrough and England during the 1890s and 1900s.

Now, let's thesaurus this up!

Steve Bloomer existed as an Association Football professional for and from the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland and as a professional football coach and manager who performed on behalf of Derby County, Middlesbrough and England for the period of the eighteen nineties and nineteen naughties.

Not actually wrong, but a mess none the less.

[dcfc_mugman]

Can't we all just agree that Sammon isn't a good footballer. He plays football professionally, yes, but he just isn't all that good at it. 

The guy just got lucky and happened to be signed by us, a team that hoped he'd be the 'star forward' we'd all been looking for. He's not it.

...Let's all put the kettle on and wait for this to all blow over. He'll probably end up going out on loan to Chesterfield, Coventry or Sheffield Utd soon enough.

[CornwallRam]

What on Earth have a started?!

DCFCFans.co.uk, come discuss the Rams, football in general and of course, the subtleties of the English language!

Unilateralism is a one sided doctrine, and generally implies to that it disregards others.

The use by CornwallRam of 'Unilaterally' was very awkward, and sounded like a child picking up a thesaurus for an English assignment, but you can just about argue that it kind of made sense. That said, it was a very usual use of the word and I do wonder how that phrasing popped into your head.

Let's take an example of a normal sentence (this from wikipedia's article on Steve Bloomer):Now, let's thesaurus this up!Not actually wrong, but a mess none the less.

Thank you for that

 

 

Whilst I freely admit that my English is far from perfect (as clearly you perceive yours to be) it has allowed me to function quite well in some pretty formal settings.

 

 

I'll happily cede to your greater knowledge of statistics, and ignore your advice on language if that's OK.

[Guest]

Thank you for that

Whilst I freely admit that my English is far from perfect (as clearly you perceive yours to be) it has allowed me to function quite well in some pretty formal settings.

I'll happily cede to your greater knowledge of statistics, and ignore your advice on language if that's OK.

I for one would rather read your posts with your "poor language", than others. I don't come on here for an English lesson, (or maths) good job really, although I've heard a few words in the playground that I'm surprised you haven't used in your reply :-)

[Albert]

Thank you for that

 

 

Whilst I freely admit that my English is far from perfect (as clearly you perceive yours to be) it has allowed me to function quite well in some pretty formal settings.

 

 

I'll happily cede to your greater knowledge of statistics, and ignore your advice on language if that's OK.

Hahaha... my English is far from perfect. Read my posts some time, I'm certain there's plenty of spelling errors and disastrous sentences which kind of fall apart. This is more about being picky about words, I was being a ***** before, but sometimes it's important to be clear. Using words in odd contexts can lead to more confusion than is really needed.

[bcnram]

Can't we all just agree that Sammon isn't a good footballer. He plays football professionally, yes, but he just isn't all that good at it. 

The guy just got lucky and happened to be signed by us, a team that hoped he'd be the 'star forward' we'd all been looking for. He's not it.

...Let's all put the kettle on and wait for this to all blow over. He'll probably end up going out on loan to Chesterfield, Coventry or Sheffield Utd soon enough.

Why is it so important to you for everyone to agree that? He has a function in the team and the ones who matter seem to appreciate that he does a reasonable job of it. I will put the kettle on though.